Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huoshenshan Hospital

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Sdkb (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huoshenshan Hospital[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every newly created hospital in the most affected regions as a response to the Corona virus outbreak should get a Wikipedia article on it's own. The text of this article may be merged into
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak
I guess this page helps to check if the article fullfills the notability criteria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Whether_to_create_standalone_pages
My pov is, the article doesn't fulfills the notability criteria. Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk)15:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, not Delete. This hospital is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Even if the text of this article is merged into 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, the article should be kept as a redirect page and its edit history should be kept. The appropriate process for this issue is, in my view, Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers, not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The primary article is already so cumbersome, and the Wuhan PHEIC so manifold a phenomenon, that a great many articles shall be spawned. Furthermore, only the Chinese could pull this off -they're not putting up tents. kencf0618 (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, and we include articles about hospitals of similar size and notability in the US & UK, for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if you realise this could be a temporary hospital. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep meets GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, large hospitals like this almost always pass GNG as it is, but the nature of this hospital's expedient construction and purpose further cement its notability with plenty of news coverage. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, and we include articles about hospitals WP:NHOSPITALS passes all three of the criteria. Wm335td (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep clearly notable per WP:NHOSPITALS. -Zanhe (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This article is extremely important in which it is being viewed around 3,000 on daily average (from Wikipedia tools). The information is not only about hospital per se, but also on its fast construction technology using prefab (thus civil engineering, construction, speed, fast-deployment, disaster management-related fields can greatly benefit from this new kind of unprecedented knowledge). This hospital article also has been written in other 7 or 8 other Wikipedia languages. From the 'Whether to create standalone pages' Wikipedia page that you wrote as the reason for this article deletion; 1. Does other information provide needed context? yes, it does. This article can't be fully written in the larger article (2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak) because that Wuhan coronavirus article is too large already (B-class article) with so many information (and it is still growing everyday), thus that Wuhan coronavirus article needs to be broken down into several smaller article, in which one of it is this hospital article. 2. Do related topics provide needed context? yes, it does. All of the hospital-related topics because of this Wuhan virus can't be collected into a single page, because hospital is not a song or movie, which can easily be listed down in a table. Hospital has its different construction history, different address, different geographical coordinates, different date of inception, different Wikimedia Commons category, different Wikidata. 3. What sourcing is available now? There are Hundreds of available legit & verifiable (non-blog) sources from all different languages, different countries and different online news sources, including both government and private sectors. Chongkian (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as others have already explained. A quick Google search shows 84,400 results after less than a week (9,120 when limited to Google News), and that's just in English. Johndavies837 (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it clearly fits the guidelines per WP:NHOSPITALS Jokullmusic 21:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either one page on these specialty hospitals, or collapse all into section Specialty hospitals, which already exists with some of this information. Having seen that section - not too large as yet - I am now torn from my strong inclusionist tendency. Consider how much more would have to be added to Specialty hospitals to make this article unneeded. If "too much" then create a merged article from this and Leishenshan Hospital, Dabie Mountain Regional Medical Centre, and maybe Xiaotangshan Hospital [zh]. Documenting the logistical responses to the threat is important. Documenting each particular piece of that response is less important. Shenme (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The subject's notably is confirmed by realiable sources. (WP:NHOSPITALS) The hospital's speedy construction has also been a publicly/propaganda of Chinese government system and is notable. Mariogoods (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Leishenshan Hospital to form into an article on how authorities in China responds to epidemics in general or a list of temporary medical quarantine facilities in China. For added context, the previous temporarily facility, zh:小汤山医院, which is the model for these two hospitals, used for SARS and other was kept til 2010, abandoned till now when the authorities now decides to renovate it to keep it on standby. We can expect the Chinese authorities to do the same for either of these temporary facilities. robertsky (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chongkian --99of9 (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is clearly notable. ‍‍‍Telluride (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable.--5LZ 08:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep， this is an hospital that exposed to internatinoal due to nCOV, soit should be notable. angys (Talk Talk) 11:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per everyone here. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A hospital of 1,000 beds constructed in 10 days is not notable?? Wow I've seen pages and pages of much less on Wiki. PenulisHantu (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – subject clearly meets WP:NHOSPITALS, don't know how indepent the topic is from the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak but the article can be merged if that is the consensus. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.